Cases

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge. The appellants, John Flynn (Flynn) et al., trustees of the Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund (IPF or the Fund), sued Dick Corporation (Company) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.

TOBIAS, J., Concurs. |tI concur in the decision of the majority. I write separately to address one matter not addressed by the majority. The 25 April 2013 pleading filed by the defendants/appellants is captioned “Decli-natory Exceptions of Lis Pendens and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction with Incorporated Memorandum.” That pleading is verified by Mr. and Mrs. Dick. As I read the plea

OPINION AND ORDER FOLLOWING NON-JURY TRIAL JON P. McCALLA, District Judge. Petitioner Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Dick’s”) brings this action against Kevin Boydston, Director of Industry Operatives, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (“Respondent” or “ATF”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3), for judicial review of the revocation of a federal license as a dealer in firearms ot

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Phillip Nghiem brings this putative class action against Defendants Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”), and Zeta Interactive Corporation (“Zeta”) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. (See D

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Phillip Nghiem brings this putative class action against Defendants Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”), and Zeta Interactive Corporation (“Zeta”) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. (See Dkt. 3

565 F.Supp.2d 141 (2008) John FLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 03-1718 (AK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 21, 2008. *142 Ira R. Mitzner, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Charles Frederick Walters, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC,

624 F.Supp.2d 125 (2009) John FLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 03-1718 (AK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 12, 2009. *126 Ira R. Mitzner, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Charles Frederick Walters, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC,

620 F.Supp.2d 33 (2009) John FLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 03-1718 (AK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 1, 2009. *34 Ira R. Mitzner, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Charles Frederick Walters, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC, fo

638 N.W.2d 486 (2002) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Sheldon DICK, Appellant. No. C3-01-833. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. February 5, 2002. *488 Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Robert A. Stanich, Assistant Attorney General, Caia Johnson, Certified Student Attorney, St. Paul, MN; and Earl E. Maus, Cass County Attorney, Ca

384 F.Supp.2d 189 (2005) John FLYNN, et al, Plaintiffs, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 03-1718 (AK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 29, 2005. *190 Ira R. Mitzner, Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Christopher A. Weals, Seyfarth & S

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2023-2753 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-CA-009504-O _____________________________ LYNN SANDFORD, Appellant, v. NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., DAVI

OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: Appellant, Maverick Steel Company (“Maverick”) appeals from the judgment entered on a directed verdict in favor of Dick Corporation, Barton Mallow Company, and their joint venture Dick Corporation/Barton Malow (“DBM”). We reverse and remand. Maverick’s predecessor, Wilhelm & Kruse, Inc. (“W & K”), provided products and services for the PNC Stadium construction project (“Stad

255 P.3d 1257 (2011) 2011 MT 138 361 Mont. 30 DICK ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Montana corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MONROE PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant and Appellee. No. DA 10-0440. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs April 6, 2011. Decided June 14

783 N.E.2d 368 (2003) DICK CORPORATION, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Gordon H. GEIGER, Eduardo Calanog, and Albert Lucas, Appellees-Defendants. No. 29A03-0206-CV-212. Court of Appeals of Indiana. February 17, 2003. *369 J. Bradford McIlvain, John J. Higson, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, David B. Vornehm, Richard S. Pitts, Dre

PER CURIAM Appeal dismissed. *Page 650 Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation. He argues that the court erred in revoking his probation without providing notice, hearing, or waiver of counsel. The state concedes the trial court's error but asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot because defendant has already completed his sentence. See Thompson v. Prinslow, 138 Or. App. 183,

299 F.Supp.2d 242 (2004) SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE POWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, Continental Casualty Company and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Defendants. Dick Corporation, on Behalf of the Consortium of Dick Corporation and Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, and Individually, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. AES Londonderry, L.L.C., Sycamore Ridge, L.L.C., Stone &

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] OPINION This appeal, having been heretofore placed on the accelerated calendar, is being considered pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12. Pursuant to Loc.R. 12(5), we elect to render our decision in a full opinion. On October 11, 1988, defendant-appellant David L. Dick was convicted of a first degree felon

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., concurring. I concur with the Court’s decision to apply the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to the three contracts involved in this case. I also concur with the Court’s decision that neither party is entitled to a summary judgment because the current record reflects genuine disputes regarding the facts material to their claims and defenses. However, because there is no

221 P.3d 675 (2009) 2009 MT 416 353 Mont. 534 DICK ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Montana Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MONROE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C., a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and Monroe Property Company, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants and Appellants. No. DA 07-0361. Supreme Court of Montana.

31 So.3d 242 (2010) KING 205, LLC and Douglas Ferrell, Appellant, v. DICK PITTMAN ROOF SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellee. No. 5D08-3529. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. March 19, 2010. *243 D. Brad Hughes of D. Brad Hughes, P.A., St. Johns, for Appellant. Sandra J. Mathis and Cristine M. Russell of Roge